Talk:Maquis raider
Ju'day class if this type of ship has canon to show it is called the Ju'Day class, shouldn't the article name be changed to reflect this? For the moment, I've created a redirect to this page...--Tiberius 06:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC) :Per the discussion on Talk:Val Jean, that was never seen on-screen, only in Star Trek: The Magazine. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC) ::Does anybody know in which issue of the Star Trek: The Magazine the graphic from was seen where the ship is labelled "Ju'day class"? --Jörg 07:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC) ::: Regarding the "background"-sourced name, we accept several other "background"-source named class designs, I really don't see this as any different, other than a case of holding a double-standard. --Alan 02:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC) ::::This seems to have been forgotten. Could someone rename the article. --Pseudohuman 01:13, July 19, 2010 (UTC) :::::Figure out what magazine issue the graphic was in, and get a copy of said image to put on the page, and we'll consider that. -- sulfur 01:47, July 19, 2010 (UTC) ::::I recall at least one source of the name ju'day class, is this drawing of the ship, but i dont remember where i saw a non-blurry scan of it. --Pseudohuman 09:23, July 19, 2010 (UTC) ::::Star Trek: The Magazine Volume 2, Issue 4, p. 112 has the statement of this according to Sennims addition of info to the studio models page. so rename now? --Pseudohuman 13:12, April 26, 2011 (UTC) ::I wouldn't mind, but strictly speaking it still isn't canon, I freezeframed through the scene and could not find the designation and unfortunately, the article in The Magazine does not have the graphic...Sennim 13:31, April 26, 2011 (UTC) ::::We dont need a clear graphic. We have a citable production source verification that the info was in the graphic that was onscreen but was illegible. So it is canon by our standards. --Pseudohuman 15:00, April 26, 2011 (UTC) Background note Regarding the background note: :"The Maquis raider is often confused with the Peregrine class , both of which were used by the Maquis, but they are two distinct designs." Since we have no idea what a Peregrine class looks like, how can we "definitively" say: "they are two distinct designs." --Alan del Beccio 00:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC) :That note was probably written confusing the Peregrine class with the Federation attack fighter, another common fan problem. In fact, the Maquis raider is commonly confused with the Federation attack fighter. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Manufacturer Is there any canon info on if the raiders were made by starfleet and captured by the Maquis, or if they made them them selfs? JCDenton 05:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC) :I'd say probably manufactured by the Federation/Starfleet. We know, at the very least, that components of the Val Jean were decades older than the Maquis itself, and every other ship we have seen used by the Maquis were of Federation or Bajoran design, and not original. That said, I don't think we have anything canon confirming this. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Two sizes? :I also wonder if a distinction should be made between the type that appeared in "Preemptive Strike" and the Val Jean/Ju'Day-Class seen from "Caretaker" onwards. The cockpit on the model used in "Preemptive Strike" matches Nenebek with the corresponding redressed interior set, likewise, the interior of the Val Jean is clearly a redress of the Runabout set, while the exterior of the Val Jean's cockpit has clearly been made to look bigger. By matching the window sizes to those of the Danube, the structure looks to be slightly wider than a Runabout's nose section. Compared side by side, the Val Jean is clearly as much as, if not more than twice the size of the earlier "Preemptive Strike" version.– 03:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC) We have one article for all different sizes of Klingon bird-of-preys so we should have one for this. scaling inconsistencies tend to fall close to the arena of nitpicking. --Pseudohuman 04:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC) :I wouldn't call it a scaling inconsistencies exactly, at least not in the same way and the BoP where and identical miniature has been used to portray craft of radically different dimensions. In this case I would say the model was deliberately modified to look like a different, though very similar and somewhat larger craft. A good real world example of this is the apparent similarity between the CH-46 Sea Knight and the CH-47 Chinook. Both are tantem helicopters with similar functions and silhouettes (from the side at least), except the Chinook is almost twice the size of the Sea Knight. Also, if you take a closer look at the Raider as it appears in "Preemptive Strike" and from "Caretaker" onwards there are a few other subtle changes to the engine structure and I think the area behind the cockpit to that would be consistent with a rescaling. Either way, I'd say it's much easier to believe two smaller craft have very similar designs than it is to believe the same for a ship as big as the BoP. So if you accept one then the other must be even more likely.– 05:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Well, we do have two pages for D7 and K't'inga so it wouldn't be without precedent to have one page for the less detailed presumably smaller ship, and another for the more detailed presumably larger ship. But still ships of some classes are refitted and detail is added, constitution for example. window sizes on the more detailed version seem to indicate a larger ship, but they are the only reference, and window sizes are overall an unreliable way to determine the size of a ship. --Pseudohuman 06:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC) :It's not so much a issue of window sizes as window spacing. If you look at the front view of the Val-Jean you can clearly see a pair of windows that match the two on the redressed runabout set. While at the same time the "original" raider's canopy emulates the Nenebek (and it's subsequent reuses) again to match the interior set. It's not as if there has been a refit like that of the Constitution-Class which has incidentally altered the overall dimensions. In this case the rescaling of the cockpit necessitates that the larger version is at least twice the width, length and height of the original which can only be a new build which happens to be designed along near identical lines, not a modification to a common spaceframe. Getting back to the windows, while I agree that they're not a reliable measure of scale for a large starship, I think it's fair to say that on ships this small, when the exterior details in both cases appear to have been intentionally built to match existing sets of an established scale, that the windows are indeed the ONLY way to establish a scale by the exterior details alone. – 10:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Are there really two sizes? Just to make sure, are we really even actually 100% sure there are two different sizes of this craft. To me the larger bridge module looks like it could easily have the Danube-cocpit interior inside and still be the same size of craft as the original with the Nenebek-interior. And since when has Star Trek been that "exact" about scaling starship models. --Pseudohuman 20:34, April 25, 2011 (UTC) :I know this is the old discussion again but nothing has been established canonwise one way or the other in: Speak and writing on screen...Confirm MA guidelines, the next in line is visual. The fact that the Companion and a Cinefex issue has production people talk about "fighter" for its TNG debut AND that the modelmakers went through the trouble in replacing a cockpit with a bridge combined with the knowledge that the Val Jean had a crew of about 30, leads me at least to the conclusion that Chakotays's vessel must be larger; comparison with the klingon BOP is moot here, in my modest opinion, as the model was physically altered...hence the rekindling of the discussion, which, if I've read it correctly was not resolved yet...Then again, if everybody decide otherwise I will not fight it...If a resolution is hit upon that they are one and the same the text of the studiomodel should be transferred to the article...--Sennim 22:12, April 25, 2011 (UTC)